Safe Haven Law from Nebraska.

[Christopher McCandless]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

[Parts]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness     We use fists here but guns and knives usually win

[Christopher McCandless]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness     We use fists here but guns and knives usually win

Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.

[DirtDawg]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."

What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.

Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.

[Parts]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness     We use fists here but guns and knives usually win

Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.

Really good maybe would you chance it? And here guns are cheep and plentiful

[Christopher McCandless]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."

What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.

Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.

The worst that would realistically happen (without it becoming national news bigtime) is the old guys would have been beaten up a little over here - guns would have had nothing to do with it.  There is a case over here a few years back of someone who did shoot and kill someone invading their house - it was in the national media for about a month and the guy got done for manslaughter. Property over life is just ridiculous imo.

[Christopher McCandless]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness     We use fists here but guns and knives usually win

Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.

Really good maybe would you chance it? And here guns are cheep and plentiful

As long as I don't go to a really rough inner city area then no-one would bother to carry a knife even. Though if I feel like it - I can run away happily.

[DirtDawg]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."

What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.

Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.

The worst that would realistically happen (without it becoming national news bigtime) is the old guys would have been beaten up a little over here - guns would have had nothing to do with it.  There is a case over here a few years back of someone who did shoot and kill someone invading their house - it was in the national media for about a month and the guy got done for manslaughter. Property over life is just ridiculous imo.

Unfortunately for the elderly couple, those thugs did not share your opinion.

Out in the country where that happened, it is a little unusual, but something similar happens at least twice every year nearby. Every other day or so a killing occurs in Indianapolis and it's not considered to be a violent city, by other standards.
There is a seven or eight year old local case still being studied by FBI psychology teams, where three teens (from well to do parents) got into a nice suburban house (presumably to steal prescription drugs) and were surprised to find people in the house. After gaining the upper hand, things continued to get worse to the point where, after several hours of arguing what to do and torturing the captives, they finally killed two people. These were high school kids.

The working theory is that after crossing a certain psycho/social boundary by invading property and capturing a person, criminals holding captives seem to escalate the level of violence far beyond anything they had ever intended. There are many cases that tie into this same behavior, where first timers (like those kids) out for some quick fun will actually perpetrate some truly gruesome and extreme violence upon their captives.

I do not intend to be captured by one of these criminals. You can tell me how peaceful the world could be all you want, but you simply do not understand.

[Christopher McCandless]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."

What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.

Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.

The worst that would realistically happen (without it becoming national news bigtime) is the old guys would have been beaten up a little over here - guns would have had nothing to do with it.  There is a case over here a few years back of someone who did shoot and kill someone invading their house - it was in the national media for about a month and the guy got done for manslaughter. Property over life is just ridiculous imo.

Unfortunately for the elderly couple, those thugs did not share your opinion.

Out in the country where that happened, it is a little unusual, but something similar happens at least twice every year nearby. Every other day or so a killing occurs in Indianapolis and it's not considered to be a violent city, by other standards.

That sort of murder rate would never been tolerated over here, nor in Canada. The problem you have in the US is the culture behind the guns, way more than the guns themselves.

I do know one thing about our decision to ban handguns (note not guns in general - a 14 year old can get a license if they have a genuine reason and are adequately supervised.) is that we have not had a school shooting since. Even more surprisingly you might find - it was a conservative government who banned them.

There is a seven or eight year old local case still being studied by FBI psychology teams, where three teens (from well to do parents) got into a nice suburban house (presumably to steal prescription drugs) and were surprised to find people in the house. After gaining the upper hand, things continued to get worse to the point where, after several hours of arguing what to do and torturing the captives, they finally killed two people. These were high school kids.

Really does not surprise me - we have had cases over here of equally sick kids, not as frequently mind. The case that springs to mind is the Bulger one - over 10 years on its still bandied about. I know people whom if enabled sufficiently, could be pushed over that line. The difference between our society and your one is we don't enable it as much.

The working theory is that after crossing a certain psycho/social boundary by invading property and capturing a person, criminals holding captives seem to escalate the level of violence far beyond anything they had ever intended. There are many cases that tie into this same behavior, where first timers (like those kids) out for some quick fun will actually perpetrate some truly gruesome and extreme violence upon their captives.

Power does that to most people to an extent - which is essentially what it boils down to. The sick act is getting the power in the first place, then one leads to another as every boundary comes tumbling down.

I do not intend to be captured by one of these criminals. You can tell me how peaceful the world could be all you want, but you simply do not understand.

Move over here then. Statistically you are a lot safer.

[TheoK]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness     We use fists here but guns and knives usually win

Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.

Different in Sweden. Every pig wears a 9 mm Sig Sauer with expanding bullets (banned in wars(!)), though Swedish cops are usually cowardly (yes, here the word is 100% right) sadists. They wear their guns instead of balls.

It would be more acceptable if the cops guns too were locked up here when there was no need for them, but that's no the case. It's rare but it happens that cops shoot people to death and go free for it in situations where an "ordinary" citizen would have gotten a hard punishment. 

[TheoK]

That sort of murder rate would never been tolerated over here, nor in Canada. The problem you have in the US is the culture behind the guns, way more than the guns themselves.

The United States have a larger population than the UK and Canada together, in fact larger than whole Europe except for the Russian part, so it's no wonder there are many murders. But you have a point; the USA is a more violent place, so that part of the analysis is correct. So you admit that it's not the guns themselves that are a problem?

I do know one thing about our decision to ban handguns

Did the British people decide to ban pistols and revolvers? No. Your government did, without asking you. How democratic is that?

(note not guns in general - a 14 year old can get a license if they have a genuine reason and are adequately supervised.) is that we have not had a school shooting since. Even more surprisingly you might find - it was a conservative government who banned them.

Why would an unpunished citizen have to prove a "need" for a gun at all in a true democracy? And the license is for hunting or shooting in a fucking shooting club; you're not allowed to own and keep a pistol at your home. And it's not surprisingly that a conservative government (in British vocabulary) bans guns; they want that "privilege" for the state. How many school shootings were there in comparison to the amount of guns compared to traffic maims and kills in comparison to the amount of cars? With the same "reasoning", cars should have been banned already around 1920 or so, but the anti-gun propaganda is neither honest nor logical.
 

Really does not surprise me - we have had cases over here of equally sick kids, not as frequently mind. The case that springs to mind is the Bulger one - over 10 years on its still bandied about. I know people whom if enabled sufficiently, could be pushed over that line. The difference between our society and your one is we don't enable it as much.

In Japan a knife armed boy managed to kill 7 people. Time for knife ban?

Power does that to most people to an extent - which is essentially what it boils down to. The sick act is getting the power in the first place, then one leads to another as every boundary comes tumbling down.

Why do you think people become cops and soldiers? Because they're great humanists? Whenever someone is stronger, they abuse their power. The average cop or soldier is much more of a potential psychopath and power-abuser than the average citizen. But you have no problem with "the state" having the theoretical posibility to kill all of its citizens or enslave them...

The really sick act is making 99.99% of the people potential slaughter sheeps and have the stomach to call it a democracy. If you literally want true equality, no-one can be allowed having an advantage in physical force at all. All must have the same ability to arm themselves for defence.

But you don't get it, because you view the "state" as an all good parent of some kind and the citizens like actual children who can never be treated like free and independent individuals and never trusted to just be let alone on their own. But you trust the "states", that literally have the power to eradicate most of life on the whole planet within minutes...

Move over here then. Statistically you are a lot safer.

 

[Christopher McCandless]

No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.

I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.

In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits

I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.

What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?

Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.

Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.

Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.

Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness     We use fists here but guns and knives usually win

Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.

Different in Sweden. Every pig wears a 9 mm Sig Sauer with expanding bullets (banned in wars(!)), though Swedish cops are usually cowardly (yes, here the word is 100% right) sadists. They wear their guns instead of balls.

It would be more acceptable if the cops guns too were locked up here when there was no need for them, but that's no the case. It's rare but it happens that cops shoot people to death and go free for it in situations where an "ordinary" citizen would have gotten a hard punishment. 

Most police forces use those sort of rounds - the idea is to incapacitate a suspect in one shot. I don't see why they can't use a Taser instead

[Christopher McCandless]

That sort of murder rate would never been tolerated over here, nor in Canada. The problem you have in the US is the culture behind the guns, way more than the guns themselves.

The United States have a larger population than the UK and Canada together, in fact larger than whole Europe except for the Russian part, so it's no wonder there are many murders. But you have a point; the USA is a more violent place, so that part of the analysis is correct. So you admit that it's not the guns themselves that are a problem?

I said rate as in per z amount of population. The guns are part of the problem - remove the guns, you kill the gun culture.

I do know one thing about our decision to ban handguns

Did the British people decide to ban pistols and revolvers? No. Your government did, without asking you. How democratic is that?

We elected the government which voted on it. No one has really complained since either.

(note not guns in general - a 14 year old can get a license if they have a genuine reason and are adequately supervised.) is that we have not had a school shooting since. Even more surprisingly you might find - it was a conservative government who banned them.

Why would an unpunished citizen have to prove a "need" for a gun at all in a true democracy? And the license is for hunting or shooting in a fucking shooting club; you're not allowed to own and keep a pistol at your home. And it's not surprisingly that a conservative government (in British vocabulary) bans guns; they want that "privilege" for the state. How many school shootings were there in comparison to the amount of guns compared to traffic maims and kills in comparison to the amount of cars? With the same "reasoning", cars should have been banned already around 1920 or so, but the anti-gun propaganda is neither honest nor logical.

You can keep a gun in your home over here - just you are not suppose to use it outside of the shooting range/ workplace. As for true democracy - is there such a thing?

Really does not surprise me - we have had cases over here of equally sick kids, not as frequently mind. The case that springs to mind is the Bulger one - over 10 years on its still bandied about. I know people whom if enabled sufficiently, could be pushed over that line. The difference between our society and your one is we don't enable it as much.

In Japan a knife armed boy managed to kill 7 people. Time for knife ban?

Less lethal than Cho Seung Hui and others. How could you enforce a knife ban - lets face it making a blade on the spot is not difficult.

Power does that to most people to an extent - which is essentially what it boils down to. The sick act is getting the power in the first place, then one leads to another as every boundary comes tumbling down.

Why do you think people become cops and soldiers? Because they're great humanists? Whenever someone is stronger, they abuse their power. The average cop or soldier is much more of a potential psychopath and power-abuser than the average citizen. But you have no problem with "the state" having the theoretical posibility to kill all of its citizens or enslave them...

Actually - I know people who are in the volunteer police force, they do it because they want to make a difference. Plus being an (unarmed) police officer is not exactly a huge source of power. The army would rebel if the government told them to go after the citizens in the manner you are suggesting.

The really sick act is making 99.99% of the people potential slaughter sheeps and have the stomach to call it a democracy. If you literally want true equality, no-one can be allowed having an advantage in physical force at all. All must have the same ability to arm themselves for defence.

I frankly don't care about whether or not we have a democracy. What I care about is whether or not we have the best people in charge of the state..

But you don't get it, because you view the "state" as an all good parent of some kind and the citizens like actual children who can never be treated like free and independent individuals and never trusted to just be let alone on their own. But you trust the "states", that literally have the power to eradicate most of life on the whole planet within minutes...

In which case, why do you need guns. Kinda pointless against an atom bomb.

Move over here then. Statistically you are a lot safer.

 

I was comparing UK to the US.

[TheoK]

I said rate as in per z amount of population. The guns are part of the problem - remove the guns, you kill the gun culture.

You'll never completely remove anything that man once invented. Human nature doesn't work like that.

We elected the government which voted on it. No one has really complained since either.

Except for the gun owners, of course.



IMHO representative "democracy" is a fraud that was invented when you could no longer fool most people that the rulers got their power from God.

You can keep a gun in your home over here - just you are not suppose to use it outside of the shooting range/ workplace. As for true democracy - is there such a thing?

Direct democracy comes close, though I'd like to abolish modern "society" as a whole. It's a trap for human spirit as well as for physical freedom.

Actually - I know people who are in the volunteer police force, they do it because they want to make a difference. Plus being an (unarmed) police officer is not exactly a huge source of power. The army would rebel if the government told them to go after the citizens in the manner you are suggesting.

"Terrorist" laws? "Patriot" Act?

I frankly don't care about whether or not we have a democracy. What I care about is whether or not we have the best people in charge of the state..

With representative "democracy" you get neither. The fooled and scared people vote for the least evil, not the best good. An enlightened despot would be better in that case. "Democratic" Britain was first in Europe with licensing guns (1903), while the "dictators" in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Ottoman Turkey let people arm themselves without infringements.

In which case, why do you need guns. Kinda pointless against an atom bomb.

So you should surrender forever because the wrong-doers can wipe you out? What a great moral principle. 

Most governments would hesitate to nuke their own country, if not for anything else than their own security.

[TheoK]

By the way; it's an unspeakable abomination from the very beginning that a citizen isn't allowed to buy any gun s/he can possibly afford, considering that governments have nuclear bombs with a capacity of millions of tons of TNT, not to mention the radiation.

"In Provence the mountains are red,
and the lemon flower is white;
number C-87 the missile,
that awaits that place with all might."